Chat GPT ADMITS ...

[Matthias]

Just noted the edit-was Messiah or the davar a concept in the mind of YHVH, other words, do you believe Messiah pre-existed WITH YHVH?

J.

I believe Jesus preexisted in the mind of God before he was miraculously begotten by God in the womb of the virgin, as described in the birth narratives (Matthew and Luke). I don’t see anything at all written by John (or anyone else in scripture) which contradicts it.

That’s called notional, or ideal, preexistence. It separates me, for example, from Arianism (which is rooted in literal preexistence.)

 

[Johann]

I believe Jesus preexisted in the mind of God before he was miraculously begotten by God in the womb of the virgin, as described in the birth narratives (Matthew and Luke). I don’t see anything at all written by John (or anyone else in scripture) which contradicts it.

That’s called notional, or ideal, preexistence. It separates me, for example, from Arianism (which is rooted in literal preexistence.)

You can call me notional, ideal, or someone who believes in a literal pre-existence of God with God, but there are simply too many scriptural examples that support this view. In this account, Elohim is not conversing with the malachim (angels). Rather, the text clearly states: "And God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'"

Let Us (נַעֲשֶׂה / na'aseh):

The Hebrew word נַעֲשֶׂה ("na'aseh") is the 1st person plural form of the verb עָשָׂה ("asah"), meaning "to make" or "to do." The plural form ("Let Us") suggests a divine conversation within the Godhead rather than a discussion with angels.

Much like-- Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]-

the beginning. Joh_1:2; Joh_1:15, *Joh_8:58; *Joh_17:5, *Gen_1:1, Psa_90:2, *Pro_8:22-31, *Isa_9:6; Isa_43:13, +*Mic_5:2, Act_11:15 g. Eph_3:9, Php_4:15 g. *Col_1:17; *Col_1:18, 2Th_2:13, Heb_1:10; Heb_7:3; **Heb_13:8, 1Jn_1:1, Rev_1:2; Rev_1:4; *Rev_1:8; Rev_1:11; Rev_1:17; *Rev_3:14; Rev_21:6; *Rev_22:12; *Rev_22:13.

And not an impersonal concept in the lev shome'a of Elohim Hashem.

And you and I both know the difference between Echad and Yachid @Matthias.

Shalom
J.

 

[Matthias]

You can call me notional, ideal, or someone who believes in a literal pre-existence of God with God, but there are simply too many scriptural examples that support this view.

I find much support for my position in the writings of trinitarian scholarship.

You can call me notional, ideal, or someone who believes in a literal pre-existence of God with God, but there are simply too many scriptural examples that support this view. In this account, Elohim is not conversing with the malachim (angels). Rather, the text clearly states: "And God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'"

Let Us (נַעֲשֶׂה / na'aseh):

The Hebrew word נַעֲשֶׂה ("na'aseh") is the 1st person plural form of the verb עָשָׂה ("asah"), meaning "to make" or "to do." The plural form ("Let Us") suggests a divine conversation within the Godhead rather than a discussion with angels.

Much like-- Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]-

the beginning. Joh_1:2; Joh_1:15, *Joh_8:58; *Joh_17:5, *Gen_1:1, Psa_90:2, *Pro_8:22-31, *Isa_9:6; Isa_43:13, +*Mic_5:2, Act_11:15 g. Eph_3:9, Php_4:15 g. *Col_1:17; *Col_1:18, 2Th_2:13, Heb_1:10; Heb_7:3; **Heb_13:8, 1Jn_1:1, Rev_1:2; Rev_1:4; *Rev_1:8; Rev_1:11; Rev_1:17; *Rev_3:14; Rev_21:6; *Rev_22:12; *Rev_22:13.

And not an impersonal concept in the lev shome'a of Elohim Hashem.

And you and I both know the difference between Echad and Yachid @Matthias.

Shalom
J.

Your comment brings to mind something I read a few days ago in a book that I’m about to finish reading:

”The Arian debates had shown that both sides were able to quote the scriptures ad infinitum without convincing their opponents.”

(Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, And The Dawn of the Monotheistic State, p. 164)

Bold is mine.

I disagree with both sides in the Arian debates but I acknowledge the truth of the author’s observation. It’s just as applicable now in Christian conversation as it was in the 4th century.

We use the same scriptures. It isn’t the scriptures that separate us. (The scriptures which you believe support your belief are the scriptures which I believe supports my belief.) It’s our respective interpretation of those scriptures that separates us.

Returning to what sparked our good conversation earlier today, ChatGPT did not deal with the issue raised by the translators of the Geneva Bible.

 

[Johann]

It, davar, the self-expression of the Messiah’s God, became flesh.

A person isn’t an it.

“

Returning to the issue which sparked our conversation earlier today, ChatGPT.


Your comment brings to mind something I read a few days ago in a book that I’m about to finish reading:

”The Arian debates had shown that both sides were able to quote the scriptures ad infinitum without convincing their opponents.”

(Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, And The Dawn of the Monotheistic State, p. 164)

Bold is mine.

I disagree with both sides in the Arian debates but I acknowledge the truth of the author’s observation. It’s just as applicable now in Christian conversation as it was in the 4th century.

We use the same scriptures. It isn’t the scriptures that separate us. (The scriptures which you believe support your belief are the scriptures which I believe supports my belief.) It’s our respective interpretation of those scriptures that separates us.

Returning to what sparked our good conversation earlier today, ChatGPT did not deal with the issue raised by the translators of the Geneva Bible.

Oh yes, it did-just fine.

In John 1:3 of the Geneva Bible (1599), the translation renders it like this:

"All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made."

Here, the Geneva Bible uses "it" instead of "him" to refer to the Logos (the Word). This choice is peculiar compared to most modern translations, which render "him" instead.

Why does the Geneva Bible use "it"?
The use of "it" reflects the translators' approach during that time, where "Word" (Logos) could be perceived as something abstract or conceptual. In English, inanimate or impersonal concepts like "word" often took "it" as the pronoun, even though the Greek text uses masculine grammar.

Which I can assure you, Jesus is not an "it" and not Impersonal.

In Koine Greek, ὁ λόγος (ho logos) is grammatically masculine, and the verb forms that follow it would indicate a personal being. Hence, modern translations reflect this by using "him."
However, in 16th-century English, the understanding of "Word" as an abstract or impersonal concept might have influenced the Geneva translators to use "it."

Greek Grammar of John 1:3:
In Greek, the relevant part of John 1:3 reads:

πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (panta di' autou egeneto)

πάντα (panta): "all things"
δι' αὐτοῦ (di' autou): "through him" (literally, "through it/him," but the context suggests "him")
ἐγένετο (egeneto): "were made" or "came into being"
Here, αὐτοῦ (autou) is the genitive singular form of the pronoun αὐτός, which can mean "him," "her," or "it" depending on the gender and context. Since Logos is masculine, the correct translation is "him," referring to the personal Word, Jesus Christ.

The Geneva Bible's choice of "it" reflects the older, possibly more abstract understanding of "the Word" at the time of its translation. However, the Greek grammar and later translations favor "him" to clarify that the Word is personal, referring to Christ.

I agree with you-our differing interpretations of Scripture are what set us apart. I would also suggest that the Geneva Bible is incorrect in this instance, @Matthias.

J.

 

[Johann]

“The challenge of insisting
that Jesus (and in later debates, the Holy Spirit) is divine and distinct without there being two (or three)
gods was one of the main conceptual difficulties in the whole debate, and remains so today.”12
Other factions concentrated on the differences between the Father and the Son, i.e. the Father
unbegotten and the Son begotten. This group was led by Eunomius who apparently employed relentless
logic, his opponents arguing that the Godhead was beyond reason and invoking the “it’s a mystery”
argument. It is interesting that during this time a pagan emperor came to power and had this to say
regarding the controversy: “No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in
their deadly hatred of each other.”13 One Christian apologist who I know sympathizes with this picture
and says “Give me a good atheist any day. It is the Bible clutching types I have trouble with.”


The Thought Police
I am most grateful to Charles Freeman for the vastness of his research and for the passion for Truth
displayed by his analysis. His ferreting out of historical facts that give us answers to the origin of this
doctrine is to be applauded. As Pascal’s wise proverb says, it is only the concealing of the origin of this
doctrine that keeps it alive. I feel that our present day reality is not quite as sunny as Freeman seems to
think. This doctrine has such a hold on the system that it is not going down without a tremendous battle.


What a paradox that it becomes the test of Christianity when its own origin and history are filled with
such violence, bloodshed, destruction, and hatred. I would argue that freedom of thought has not
occurred in the Bible Belt. The trinity is the one thing that cannot be questioned without one’s own
salvation being in question. We have followed men who sound like monsters and creeds that sound like
nonsense, all the while ignoring Jesus’ own creed. As to Freeman’s subtitle, The Dawn of the
Monotheistic State – I am certainly looking forward to it but it is not here yet. Surely there is
movie/documentary material here! What a blessed challenge to be a part of the revealing of the origin of
this doctrine! And it would have so much more substance then the DaVinci Code!


May I conclude with the words of Michael Servetus who was murdered by John Calvin on this
theological issue and serves as yet another reason why we should be concerned/passionate about it: “To
me not only the syllables but all the letters and the mouths of babes and sucklings, even the very stones
themselves, cry out there is one God the Father and [as a separate being] his Christ, the Lord Jesus...Not
one word is found in the whole Bible about the Trinity nor about its persons, nor about the essence nor the
unity of substance nor of the one nature of the several beings nor about any of the rest of their ravings and
logic chopping.”26


Good quote-from Charles Freeman, A.D. 381 @Matthias

J.

 

[Matthias]

Oh yes, it did-just fine.

In John 1:3 of the Geneva Bible (1599), the translation renders it like this:

"All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made."

Here, the Geneva Bible uses "it" instead of "him" to refer to the Logos (the Word). This choice is peculiar compared to most modern translations, which render "him" instead.

Why does the Geneva Bible use "it"?
The use of "it" reflects the translators' approach during that time, where "Word" (Logos) could be perceived as something abstract or conceptual. In English, inanimate or impersonal concepts like "word" often took "it" as the pronoun, even though the Greek text uses masculine grammar.

Which I can assure you, Jesus is not an "it" and not Impersonal.

In Koine Greek, ὁ λόγος (ho logos) is grammatically masculine, and the verb forms that follow it would indicate a personal being. Hence, modern translations reflect this by using "him."
However, in 16th-century English, the understanding of "Word" as an abstract or impersonal concept might have influenced the Geneva translators to use "it."

Greek Grammar of John 1:3:
In Greek, the relevant part of John 1:3 reads:

πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (panta di' autou egeneto)

πάντα (panta): "all things"
δι' αὐτοῦ (di' autou): "through him" (literally, "through it/him," but the context suggests "him")
ἐγένετο (egeneto): "were made" or "came into being"
Here, αὐτοῦ (autou) is the genitive singular form of the pronoun αὐτός, which can mean "him," "her," or "it" depending on the gender and context. Since Logos is masculine, the correct translation is "him," referring to the personal Word, Jesus Christ.

The Geneva Bible's choice of "it" reflects the older, possibly more abstract understanding of "the Word" at the time of its translation. However, the Greek grammar and later translations favor "him" to clarify that the Word is personal, referring to Christ.

I agree with you-our differing interpretations of Scripture are what set us apart. I would also suggest that the Geneva Bible is incorrect in this instance, @Matthias.

J.

Had you lived prior to 1611 and been reading English translations of John’s prologue translated directly from Greek into English, “it” is the only word you would have read.

You suggest that the Geneva Bible is incorrect in this instance. In order to be consistent you would further have to suggest that all of the other English translations (again, within the boundary I established) are also incorrect in this instance.

I love irony. While you suggest that the other English translations are wrong, I suggest that all of them - including KJV - are right in this instance.

 

[Matthias]

“The challenge of insisting
that Jesus (and in later debates, the Holy Spirit) is divine and distinct without there being two (or three)
gods was one of the main conceptual difficulties in the whole debate, and remains so today.”12
Other factions concentrated on the differences between the Father and the Son, i.e. the Father
unbegotten and the Son begotten. This group was led by Eunomius who apparently employed relentless
logic, his opponents arguing that the Godhead was beyond reason and invoking the “it’s a mystery”
argument. It is interesting that during this time a pagan emperor came to power and had this to say
regarding the controversy: “No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in
their deadly hatred of each other.”13 One Christian apologist who I know sympathizes with this picture
and says “Give me a good atheist any day. It is the Bible clutching types I have trouble with.”


The Thought Police
I am most grateful to Charles Freeman for the vastness of his research and for the passion for Truth
displayed by his analysis. His ferreting out of historical facts that give us answers to the origin of this
doctrine is to be applauded. As Pascal’s wise proverb says, it is only the concealing of the origin of this
doctrine that keeps it alive. I feel that our present day reality is not quite as sunny as Freeman seems to
think. This doctrine has such a hold on the system that it is not going down without a tremendous battle.


What a paradox that it becomes the test of Christianity when its own origin and history are filled with
such violence, bloodshed, destruction, and hatred. I would argue that freedom of thought has not
occurred in the Bible Belt. The trinity is the one thing that cannot be questioned without one’s own
salvation being in question. We have followed men who sound like monsters and creeds that sound like
nonsense, all the while ignoring Jesus’ own creed. As to Freeman’s subtitle, The Dawn of the
Monotheistic State – I am certainly looking forward to it but it is not here yet. Surely there is
movie/documentary material here! What a blessed challenge to be a part of the revealing of the origin of
this doctrine! And it would have so much more substance then the DaVinci Code!


May I conclude with the words of Michael Servetus who was murdered by John Calvin on this
theological issue and serves as yet another reason why we should be concerned/passionate about it: “To
me not only the syllables but all the letters and the mouths of babes and sucklings, even the very stones
themselves, cry out there is one God the Father and [as a separate being] his Christ, the Lord Jesus...Not
one word is found in the whole Bible about the Trinity nor about its persons, nor about the essence nor the
unity of substance nor of the one nature of the several beings nor about any of the rest of their ravings and
logic chopping.”26


Good quote-from Charles Freeman, A.D. 381 @Matthias

J.

The book is excellent. I highly recommend it to all.

 

[Johann]

Had you lived prior to 1611 and been reading English translations of John’s prologue translated directly from Greek into English, “it” is the only word you would have read.

You suggest that the Geneva Bible is incorrect in this instance. In order to be consistent you would further have to suggest that all of the other English translations (again, within the boundary I established) are also incorrect in this instance.

I love irony. While you suggest that the other English translations are wrong, I suggest that all of them - including KJV - are right in this instance.

Oh the irony!

The Tyndale New Testament (1526) uses the pronoun "it" in John 1:3, where it reads: "All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was." Similarly, in verse 4, it continues: "In it was life..." This translation applies the neuter pronoun "it" to describe "the Word" (Logos), rather than using the masculine "he" as seen in many modern versions
Bible Hub

Bible Study Tools


This differs from most contemporary translations like the NKJV, NIV, and ESV, which use "he" to refer to the Word, reinforcing the personification of the Logos. This choice reflects both theological perspectives and translation practices, particularly related to how the Logos is understood in relation to Christ.

Of course I would agree.

J.

 

[Johann]

The book is excellent. I highly recommend it to all.

Not that I would agree with Freeman, of course.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Oh the irony!

The Tyndale New Testament (1526) uses the pronoun "it" in John 1:3, where it reads: "All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was." Similarly, in verse 4, it continues: "In it was life..." This translation applies the neuter pronoun "it" to describe "the Word" (Logos), rather than using the masculine "he" as seen in many modern versions
Bible Hub

Bible Study Tools


This differs from most contemporary translations like the NKJV, NIV, and ESV, which use "he" to refer to the Word, reinforcing the personification of the Logos. This choice reflects both theological perspectives and translation practices, particularly related to how the Logos is understood in relation to Christ.

Of course I would agree.

J.

Jesus Christ was never an “it” but God’s logos was. John is speaking about one person, not two - and certainly not three! - in his prologue.

 

[Matthias]

Not that I would agree with Freeman, of course.

J.

Read the book if you get a chance to. It is close to impossible not to agree with him. He quotes the original sources. He also provides references to other scholars - virtually all of whom are trinitarian (he takes issue with a non-trinitarian scholar - rightly so, imo) - who say the same thing. History, as written by the trinitarians.

 

[Biblepaige]

GPT stands for, Generative Pre-trained Transformer.

Anyone else here think of that Mark Wahlberg car movie?

 

[Johann]

Read the book if you get a chance to. It is close to impossible not to agree with him. He quotes the original sources. He also provides references to other scholars - virtually all of whom are trinitarian (he takes issue with a non-trinitarian scholar - rightly so, imo) - who say the same thing. History, as written by the trinitarians.

I’m facing a bit of a challenge, @Matthias – finances are really tight. Unless I can find these books in PDF format, I’m stuck. The South African Rand is practically worthless at the moment, and although I have several resources in PDF form on my computer, I’m struggling to get the ones I need.

Know what I mean?
J.

 

[Johann]

Jesus Christ was never an “it” but God’s logos was. John is speaking about one person, not two - and certainly not three! - in his prologue.

Ah! wouldn't go that far-my rabbinical sources definitely disagree with you.
And so the Talmuds.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Ah! wouldn't go that far-my rabbinical sources definitely disagree with you.
And so the Talmuds.

J.

Thanks for that. It’s crazy how many times people have associated me with the rabbis and the Talmud's just because I’m a Jewish monotheist (and sometimes quote them). I really do appreciate that you don’t.

 

[Johann]

Thanks for that. It’s crazy how many times people have associated me with the rabbis and the Talmud's just because I’m a Jewish monotheist. I really do appreciate that you don’t.

I don't, but definitely worth reading.

J.

 

[Matthias]

I don't, but definitely worth reading.

J.

Read widely. Read deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

Read the rabbis and the Talmuds.

 

[Matthias]

And you and I both know the difference between Echad and Yachid @Matthias.

Shalom
J.

The Messiah’s God and Father is echad.

Does ChatGPT acknowledge it?

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

... an historical timeline overlap between the Anglo-Saxon race and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel.

The lost tribes went through a series of racial identities after leaving Assyria. They became the Gimri (Cimmerrians) and eventually the Scythians. While modern official archeological and historical positions claim that the Anglo-Saxon race somewhat mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early centuries AD, it also admits that the Scythians died out around that same time.

Chat GPT says:



What does this mean?

It is profoundly important evidence that the Anglo-Saxon race has a very legitimate connection to the lost tribes of Israel. This contradicts much of what is taught in schools and universities throughout the world.

There is something very strange going on in the world concerning the consideration of the Anglo race today and all races are noticing and declaring it on all platforms across the internet. Officially, it is not received well, but the average citizen is becoming very interested in this matter.

We may have lost sight of those tribes, but God has not! In Rev. 7, we see God marking 144k (12k decendants _ male virgins _ from each of the original 12 tribes). These new Christian Jews will evangelize a remnant Jewish population - 1/3 ( 5 million) during the Great Tribulation which is nearly upon us. According to Romans 11, God is not finished with Israel ( and I do mean a bloodline Jewish remnant). Paul here distinguishes the Israelites ( of which he is part and the Gentiles).

 

[ChristinaL]

... an historical timeline overlap between the Anglo-Saxon race and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel.

The lost tribes went through a series of racial identities after leaving Assyria. They became the Gimri (Cimmerrians) and eventually the Scythians. While modern official archeological and historical positions claim that the Anglo-Saxon race somewhat mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early centuries AD, it also admits that the Scythians died out around that same time.

Chat GPT says:



What does this mean?

It is profoundly important evidence that the Anglo-Saxon race has a very legitimate connection to the lost tribes of Israel. This contradicts much of what is taught in schools and universities throughout the world.

There is something very strange going on in the world concerning the consideration of the Anglo race today and all races are noticing and declaring it on all platforms across the internet. Officially, it is not received well, but the average citizen is becoming very interested in this matter.

Oh I hope you arent one of those British Israelists because its totally false that they are connected to the 12 tribes